"Wikipedia Forever" - fundraising campaign, or non-stop laff riot? Options

[carbuncle]

Someone dislikes thekohser enough to spend US$6.66.

[the fieryangel]

This one is simply strange : Somebody trying to get unbanned from WR using the WMF fundraiser....

I wonder who this might be???

[dogbiscuit]

This one is simply strange : Somebody trying to get unbanned from WR using the WMF fundraiser....

I wonder who this might be???

The same person who posted:

Anonymous
Gregory Kohs is a loser who is banned from Wikipedia 18:36, 11 November 2009 USD 6.66

???

[thekohser]

Someone dislikes thekohser enough to spend US$6.66.

I am hurt by this defamatory affront to my good name, and I have notified the Wikimedia Foundation that they may either remove the hurtful comment, or they may release to me the personally identifying info related to the donor (typical anonymous coward).

[dogbiscuit]

Someone dislikes thekohser enough to spend US$6.66.

I am hurt by this defamatory affront to my good name, and I have notified the Wikimedia Foundation that they may either remove the hurtful comment, or they may release to me the personally identifying info related to the donor (typical anonymous coward).

Quite: don't they know the difference between banned and indefinitely blocked by Teh Community? The Fool

[thekohser]

Someone dislikes thekohser enough to spend US$6.66.

I am hurt by this defamatory affront to my good name, and I have notified the Wikimedia Foundation that they may either remove the hurtful comment, or they may release to me the personally identifying info related to the donor (typical anonymous coward).

I received a reply from Anya, that the comment will be taken down from their site within an hour. (If it's anything like the flagged revisions estimated time to process, the comment will be down in March or April.)

[MZMcBride]

I received a reply from Anya, that the comment will be taken down from their site within an hour. (If it's anything like the flagged revisions estimated time to process, the comment will be down in March or April.)

The comment has been removed.

[Cla68]

As I was working on the Eurasian Land Bridge article, I found that there are a lot more articles on the subject that are not currently available on the free web. I assume that this is the case for many other subjects.

Would it be feasible for the Foundation, as a fundraiser, to buy a site license for LexisNexis, ProQuest NewsStand, or some other article aggregator and then sell access to Wiki-project participants at a discount? The Foundation would be able to keep the proceeds that exceed the cost of buying the site license. Wiki-project participants would be motivated by being able to obtain the access at a discount, and could use the access for their own personal activities like school projects, as well as for building articles in Wikipedia. I would think that article quality would greatly improve because editors would have ready access to more sources of information.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Thu 12th November 2009, 11:32pm

[Casliber]

As I was working on the Eurasian Land Bridge article, I found that there are a lot more articles on the subject that are not currently available on the free web. I assume that this is the case for many other subjects.

Would it be feasible for the Foundation, as a fundraiser, to buy a site license for LexisNexis, ProQuest NewsStand, or some other article aggregator and then sell access to Wiki-project participants at a discount? The Foundation would be able to keep the proceeds that exceed the cost of buying the site license. Wiki-project participants would be motivated by being able to obtain the access at a discount, and could use the access for their own personal activities like school projects, as well as for building articles in Wikipedia. I would think that article quality would greatly improve because editors would have ready access to more sources of information.

Now that would be a damn fine idea. I come across this problem repeatedly. I can access articles of many (but by no means most) medical journals quite easily but other stuff is frustratingly hard.
Cas

[Milton Roe]

Would it be feasible for the Foundation, as a fundraiser, to buy a site license for LexisNexis, ProQuest NewsStand, or some other article aggregator and then sell access to Wiki-project participants at a discount?

I think that sort of undermines the point of a site license. I'd take a very dim view of that if I were one of those "aggregators."

[thekohser]

I received a reply from Anya, that the comment will be taken down from their site within an hour. (If it's anything like the flagged revisions estimated time to process, the comment will be down in March or April.)

The comment has been removed.

Ahhh Ha HA HA HAAAAAAH ! ! !

Somebody just wasted $6.66 out of their allowance!

[Gazimoff]

I have a feeling the Wikipedia Forever marketing plan is going to be comedy gold in good time. Probably about the time either the servers go poink next or Cade Metz finds something else to blog about.

[tarantino]

Would it be feasible for the Foundation, as a fundraiser, to buy a site license for LexisNexis, ProQuest NewsStand, or some other article aggregator and then sell access to Wiki-project participants at a discount?

That was extensively discussed on wikien-l last December. Of course nothing came of it, because "the community" has virtually no say on how the Foundation uses the donations they receive.

[Cla68]

Would it be feasible for the Foundation, as a fundraiser, to buy a site license for LexisNexis, ProQuest NewsStand, or some other article aggregator and then sell access to Wiki-project participants at a discount?

That was extensively discussed on wikien-l last December. Of course nothing came of it, because "the community" has virtually no say on how the Foundation uses the donations they receive.

Well, I once worked for an organization which had a Lexis/Nexis site license. From what I understand, the license was fairly expensive. I don't know how much the ProQuest site license is, but it may be cheaper because NewsStand, I believe, has less capability than Lexis/Nexis. NewsStand covers about 350 newspapers while Lexis/Nexis covers a number of newspapers and magazines, if I understand correctly.

I would think that an organization trying to use volunteers to build a credible encyclopedia would try to help them out with it in some way, but again, the Foundation seems to keep trying to prove that Greg's criticisms of them are right.

[carbuncle]

I don't want to read too much into Brion's responses here, but I do detect a faint hint of "fuck you, Erik"?

Also, can I ask explicitly: what exactly is the 2009 funding drive doing to secure the long-term ("forever") future of Wikipedia? It sounds a bizarre promise to make, like a toothbrush giving you eternal life. But if there is a long-term plan being funded, shouldn't the landing page at least try to explain it? Right now it's "Wikipedia forever" / Click / "Huh? What happened to forever?" Why did you use a "forever" hook and then not even try to justify it? Rd232 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know there's nothing particularly different about the actual fundraising or spending targets from previous years; as before the targets are for covering next year's budget and maybe a little extra. --brion 19:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So "forever" is just marketing? There's no special long-term planning substance? That doesn't really matter as long as you've got something to point to try and justify the hook. But if you don't even try it makes the claim really weird (quite separate from the linguistic criticisms made, that "Wikipedia forever" sounds tweeny). Rd232 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Rand to provide some details on this; all I can do myself is point at the FAQ which indicates we're targeting about 3/4 of this fiscal year's budgeted expenses for the public donation campaign. --brion 20:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by carbuncle: Fri 13th November 2009, 3:51am

[Anonymous editor]

hilariously awful ads.

I laughed at reading the discussion. Several users thought the banner was vandalism/a hack.

Idiotic decision. The community's input was requested, they clearly opposed it, and it was put up anyway.

Someone should start an article about some of the memorably terrible Wikipedia ad campaigns. There appear to be sufficient reliable sources to draw from.

Blocked

CODE

upload.wikimedia.org/centralnotice

and it's gone, thankfully.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor: Fri 13th November 2009, 5:33am

[Brutus]

They seem to list corporate donations here.
Donate/Benefactors
Is the Foundation choosy from who they take money from?
Maybe Hustler Magazine or some Japanese whale meat company could donate,

[everyking]

As I was working on the Eurasian Land Bridge article, I found that there are a lot more articles on the subject that are not currently available on the free web. I assume that this is the case for many other subjects.

Would it be feasible for the Foundation, as a fundraiser, to buy a site license for LexisNexis, ProQuest NewsStand, or some other article aggregator and then sell access to Wiki-project participants at a discount? The Foundation would be able to keep the proceeds that exceed the cost of buying the site license. Wiki-project participants would be motivated by being able to obtain the access at a discount, and could use the access for their own personal activities like school projects, as well as for building articles in Wikipedia. I would think that article quality would greatly improve because editors would have ready access to more sources of information.

It would be great to see the foundation adopt proposals like that. I know I could do quite a bit more work if I had access to a site like Lexis-Nexis.

[thekohser]

Proof that Wikipedia is a cult: Domas Mituzas' pledge.

Domas Mituzas
consider taking my soul too.

[MZMcBride]

Proof that Wikipedia is a cult: Domas Mituzas' pledge.

Domas Mituzas
consider taking my soul too.

It appears this donation has been removed.